Centerfield

I just read John Dean's Blind Ambition. A gripping read. I now scanned his "Worse than Watergate" about the Bush Administration. He didn't originate the title, and I think it's an exaggeration, but I think he's right that the Bush Administration is more Nixonian than Reaganite. Cheney in particular was formed professionally in the Nixon years, and is consciously trying to revive the "imperial presidency." No evidence that he's violated the law in doing so, though.

rick, where does "imperial presidency" start and using the assets of the job to get your policies and programs enacted end?

There is no bright line. Nixon believed in a strong presidency, with powers not limited that much by Congress in terms of making war, or even domestic surveillance. The presidency became weaker after he resigned. Clearly, the presidency needs to be more powerful during a war, but Dean points out that many of the changes made by the Bush Administration were contemplated before 9/11. It's a matter of taste whether one prefers a strong or a limited presidency, but under Bush, we have a strong one.

It's a matter of taste whether one prefers a strong or a limited presidency, but under Bush, we have a strong one.

Which, as Nixon discovered, is impossible without a compliant Congress. When Congress turned, Nixon fell.

And the compliant - supine, even - congress is also key. Every now and again, an email circulates sayin how beastly it is that Bush has never vetoed a bill. This is a fairly silly statistic, even in and of itself (as a criterion for measuring presidential effectiveness, it's somewhere between useless and meaningless), but even taking it for what it's worth, it's important to understand that Bush's remote control over the hill has been so powerful that he has no NEED to veto a bill. If he doesn't like it, his allies on the hill ensure that it doesn't reach his desk.

People constantly use hyperbole about the time in which they live, and so we constantly - and entirely falsely - hear that partisanship has never been so bad, that elections these days are too nasty. Adams v. Jefferson? The people v. Andrew Jackson? NASTY fights. So with that in mind, I mean to say this in all sincerity: I don't know that there has EVER been a time in American history that the Congress has so utterly rolled over and offered itself to the Presidency. This is a profoundly dangerous trend, because the American system was built on the assumption that each brach would jealously guard its prerogatives against the others - as Congress goes, so the separation of powers, because the Presidency will take, take, take.

Compliant, eh? So how 'bout those budgets?

Ike had a similar majority, and he vetoed bills to keep spending in line. He threatened congressmen with nonsupport for reelection if they overturned too many vetoes.

Hey, Simon you were looking for a defense of the living constitution, I found one at anonymous liberal (no permalinks). But maybe I should not unleash the beast :)?

LMAO. How do you think the compliance has been assured? But we can watch 'em stray off the reservation for a few years now, as Bush can't run again.

Ike never had a GOP House and Senate. He was always dealing with the opposition being in control of at least one house of Congress, and usually both.

Just to pull some of you out of the box:

The good news in Iraq gets its ass kicked.

Btw Tully and BK...I have tomatoes out the wazoo. Wanna come over and pick? LOL

How's it going?

The really important stuff, fresh-off-the-vine tomatoes. Yours look awesome, Carla. If you didn't live a coupla thousand miles away I'd already be over there with bushel baskets, offering to trade for zucchini. (As if anyone ever needed an extra zucchini this time of year.) Our tomatoes got mostly wiped out by weather and bugs this year, except for the tiny yellow pears. Our root crops and melons did well.

I do wish you hadn't told me about that Adam. ;) It meant I had to spend an hour writing this beast of a rebuttal (and even at that length, it's only a half-assed rebuttal).

I don't have much to offer in terms of an open thread, because I've been very much tied up with other projects recently.

a) I'm working with my county Republican party to redesign their website, and anyone willing to lend a critical eye is more than welcome to drop me an e-mail (send to simon at simondodd dot org).

b) I'm putting the (interminably delayed) finishing touches to version 1.0 of some blog software I've been writing for the last few months. Once that's done, I will be joining the moderate Republican blogosphere with a blog of my own. Possible titles - with a tip of the hat towards my Scalian inclinations - include "I respectfully dissent" and "Fiat justitia ruat coelum". I remain open to suggestions.

c) I have three fairly extended essays that I'm finishing up - a reply to Newt Gingrich's points about the role of the courts in Winning the Future, one discussing my views on constitutional rights and their intersection with the ninth and tenth amendments, and two shorter notes discussing Roe (as a hat tip to Larry Tribe, I may call it "the unbearable wrongness of Roe v. Wade), and the other is a general rejoinder to a post on PrawfsBlawg a few weeks ago, that mainly repeats content already used here. Once those four are finished, I hope to attack the dormant commerce clause and P&I incorporation later this year (joint venture, Pat?).

It's a tiring time. The kittens are getting big and underfoot.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the privatization of toll roads? Trenton is considering selling the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway. I think I like the idea, but I haven't really looked that hard at it.

My main concern with privatization of public infrastructure is usually that, I fear inevitably, tolls will be imposed. However, if these are already toll roads, I think it's less of a concern. However, I would be inclined for the City to contract out, rather than sell outright - i.e., the city hands out a ten year renewable contract, retains ultimate ownership, but in all practical regards, the costs and profits of operation are entirley at the door of the contractor.

Both are already toll roads, and it's not the City of Trenton that owns them. It's the State of New Jersey, of which Trenton is the capital. (You probably already knew that last part.)

I think there has been talk of leasing the roads rather than selling them, and I think there is supposed to be a clause regulating toll increases. Those who are opposed to, or at least not immediately approving of, doing this are worried about the roads not being maintained and , toll increases, which are probably moot given the aforementioned clause.

I just tend to think that a for-profit company will do a much better job and be more efficient than the state. I don't know what sort of regulations would be imposed on their contracting practices, particularly given the strength of unions in this state, but I still think things would get done faster and better by a private for-profit venture.

If by privatization you meaning selling off the roads as assets now, and spending that money now to finance deficit spending, and then losing out on all future toll collections as government revenue in the future, I think that's a lousy idea.

If someone else wants to buy under those terms, they'd have to be doing so because they think they'll make money in the long run, which obviously means the state should KEEP the toll road.

If you are just talking about letting a private firm manage such state assets, I'm not that troubled, as long as they do a good job. No 50 year contracts.

For the most part I agree with you, bk. The only rub is that a private company deciding that they can make money on something doesn't necessarily mean that the state can as well.

True, I thought of that too. Of course, supposing a private owner can find "other ways to make money" on that road they just bought, these other ways might include things that the people wouldn't like, and which might even take away from the original purpose of quick, direct, transport. They might add more exits, and malls, and such, and next thing you know the toll thru-way is only a marginally better option.

I wasn't really thinking of other ways to make money. I just figure that they won't be saddled with the bureaucracy of a state-run entity. For-profits are just leaner and meaner.